Filed Date: 4/20/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
It is preferable to try related actions together, in order to avoid a waste of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent verdicts (Rothstein v Milleridge Inn, 251 AD2d 154 [1998]). These incidents arose from a common nucleus of facts (Sichel v Community Synagogue, 256 AD2d 276 [1998]), and will require almost the same list of witnesses (Andresakis v Lynn, 236 AD2d 252 [1997]). Defendants have failed to demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right in the absence of severance of these claims (id.; CPLR 603). This was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.